WFD and Agriculture Linkages at the EU Level Summary report on an in-depth assessment of RDprogrammes as regards water management

Transcription

1 WFD and Agriculture Linkages at the EU Level Summary report on an in-depth assessment of RDprogrammes as regards water management Final Report Prepared by: Thomas Dworak (Ecologic Institute - Vienna) Maria Berglund (Ecologic Institute - Berlin) Vranken Liesbet (Vito) Paul Campling (Vito) Eleftheria Kampa (Ecologic Institute - Berlin) Maria Miguel Ribeiro (Ecologic Institute - Vienna) Thomas Thaler (Ecologic Institute - Vienna)

2 DISCLAIMER Please note: The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission or individual Member States. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the information contained herein. The information compiled in this paper might be subject to rapid change. The Rural Development information presented is the status as of December

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Rural Development and WFD implementation Background information The CAP Health Check and implications for rural development programmes Main principles of the European Rural Development policy Main Principles of the Water Framework Directive Measures under the Rural Development Regulation that can support the WFD implementation Nature of the present report Main objectives and structure of the report Limitations of the report Methodology used to carry out the assessment Importance of water in the overall context of the national RD programmes General overview and share of public budget among the axes Main pressures to water reported in the RD programmes Link between the WFD and the Rural Development programmes Examples of how RD measures can be used to improve water in the MS Overview of RD measure with an impact on water applied at MS level Payments with primary focus on the improvement of rural areas economic situation Adding value to agricultural products (code 123) Agricultural and forestry infrastructure (Code 125) Tourism activities (Code 313) Basic Services (Code 321) Village renewal and development (Code 322) Payments that aim primarily at reducing the environmental cost NATURA 2000 on agricultural land and the WFD (Code 213) Agri-Environmental measures (Code 214) Non productive investments on agricultural land (Code 216) First afforestation of agricultural land (Code 221) First afforestation of non-agricultural land (Code 223) Natura 2000 payments on forest land (code 224)...34

4 6.3.7 Forest-environment payments (Code 225) Non-productive investments on forest land (Code 227) Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage (Code 323) Payments falling under both categories Training, Information (Code 111) Use of advisory services (Code 114) Modernisation of agricultural holdings (Code 121) Restoration and prevention actions (Code 126) Natural handicap payments (Code 211/212) First establishment of agro-forestry systems (Code 222) Recovery of forestry potentials (Code 226) Use of LEADER to implement the WFD Implementation, controls, monitoring and evaluation Summary of main strengths and weaknesses of the MS RDPs Conclusions and recommendations for future activities Bibliography Annex 1: Assessment template - Draft [Member State] report of an in-depth assessment of RD-programmes as regards water management Annex 2: Rural Development Programmes assessed Annex 3 Summary of MS Assessments

5 1 Introduction As a result of a process of more than five years of discussions and negotiations between a wide range of experts, stakeholders and policy makers, the Water Framework Directive (or Directive 2000/60/EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council established a framework for European Community action in the field of water policy. The Directive, which entered into force on the 22nd of December 2000, establishes a framework for the protection of all waters, with the aim of all community waters achieving good status by Since its reform in 2003, the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been better suited to assisting in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The European Commission s Environment Directorate-General prepared a working document highlighting a number of opportunities where the CAP can help achieve the WFD objectives (European Commission, DG Environment, 2003). Achieving these objectives remains a challenge, however. Recognising this, the Water Directors (representatives of the EU Member States administrations with overall responsibility for water policy) agreed in June 2004 to take action in the context of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) 1. To this end, they established an EU Strategic Steering Group (SSG) to identify agricultural issues which affect a Member State's ability to meet WFD objectives. The Strategic Steering Group (SSG) on WFD and Agriculture, which met for the first time in April 2005, is led by the UK, France and the European Commission s Environment Directorate-General, with technical support from the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. The main focus of the SSG s activity during was the identification of gaps between WFD requirements and what the existing CAP may deliver in terms of water protection. Based on a detailed assessment of the linkages between the CAP and the WFD, the SSG explored further options for bridging these gaps. Their main findings have been put together in four technical reports, which have been endorsed by the Water Directors. Each report addresses a specific aspect of the CAP, in the context of WFD implementation: 1. Rural Development and the WFD (Dworak et al., 2005), 2. Incentive water pricing and cost recovery in the WFD - Elements for Linking EU Agricultural and Water Policies (Interwies, et al., 2006), 3. Cross-compliance and the WFD (Müssner et al., 2006), and 4. Co-operation and participation at the interface of EU Agricultural and Water Policies (Dworak et al., 2006). According to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, Member States (MS) must establish multi-annual Rural Development (RD) programs for the period at their appropriate territorial level and according to their own institutional arrangements. 1 The main aim of this strategy is to facilitate the coherent and harmonious implementation of the WFD. The focus is on methodological questions related to a common understanding of the technical and scientific implications of the WFD. 5

6 The programming of RD should comply with Community and MS s national priorities and complement the other Community policies, in particular the agricultural market policy, cohesion policy and common fisheries policy. The RD programs are co-funded by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), the MS concerned and in the case of certain measures involves private funds of beneficiaries. Since the Rural Development Programmes for the period have been approved and the drafting of the River Basin Management plans is in its final stage, the SSG is now focussing on the impacts these programmes could have on water issues identified in the WFD environmental analysis (see Herbke, et al., 2006). To this end, Ecologic and VITO have been commissioned to prepare a report in the context of the project Place of WFD issues in rural development programmes and workshop related to WFD and agriculture, providing an assessment and comparison of national rural development strategies and programmes in the 27 Member States. 6

7 2 Rural Development and WFD implementation Background information Across much of the EU tackling the pressures on water caused by agriculture constitutes one of the main challenges to achieving WFD objectives. The development of these pressures has been strongly influenced by the main agricultural funding scheme, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with its two main areas (so-called 'Pillars') of agricultural expenditure, namely i) the Market and income support (Pillar 1) and ii) the Rural Development (Pillar 2). In terms of budget, Pillar 1 received in 2007 by far more funding (42.7 billion Euros) than Pillar 2 (12.4 billion. Euros) 2. Over the last years, and in particular since the 2003 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the opportunities for reducing these pressures have increased significantly. The reform brought greater clarity to CAP funding, stabilised overall CAP expenditure, and increased the importance of environmental protection by including new provisions under Pillar 1 (e.g. further decoupling, Cross Compliance) as well as under Pillar 2 (measures under rural development). The key change under pillar 1 was the introduction of mandatory Cross Compliance (Council Regulation No 1782/2003 and Commission Regulation No 796/2004), which was an important step towards protecting European Waters on a broader scale and towards applying the Polluter Pays Principle to farmers. Since 2005, all farmers receiving direct payments must respect Cross Compliance standards in two ways: First, they must respect the Statutory Management Requirements set-up, in accordance with 19 EU Directives and Regulations 3. The standards relate to the protection of the environment; public, animal and plant health, and animal welfare. With regard to water management, the most important Directives covered by Cross Compliance are the Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) and the Nitrate Directive (91/676/EEC), and to some extent the Sewage Sludge Directive (Directive 86/278/EEC), which will also be part of the River Basin management plans under the WFD. Second, all agricultural land for farmers claiming payment should be kept in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC). In general, GAEC s focus is on the protection of soil and its having a positive side-effect on the reduction of diffuse pollution. It is up to the individual Member States to define minimum GAEC requirements, which may differ, depending on local conditions. 2 See 3 The Directives relevant to water protection are the Groundwater Directive (Article 3), the Sewage Sludge Directive (Article 3), the Nitrates Directive (Articles 4 and 5), the Conservation of Wild Birds (Articles 3, 4 (1), (2), (4), 5, 7 and 8), and the Conservation of natural habitats, wild flora and fauna (Articles 6, 13, 15, and 22(b)). 7

8 Under pillar 2 the main key change was a strengthened Rural Development policy with new measures to promote the environment, quality of food production, animal welfare and to help farmers meet EU production standards. In order to further strengthen Pillar 2, compulsory modulation was introduced in It was complemented in 2007 by the possibility to apply additional voluntary modulation 4. Compulsory modulation addresses the concern of increasing support for Rural Development within the EU by mandating that a percentage of Single Farm Payment (direct payments) spending be transferred to the Rural Development budget. Under the provisions of European Council Regulation 1782/2003, a compulsory modulation rate of 5% is currently levied on all direct payments in the EU The CAP Health Check and implications for rural development programmes On 20 November 2008, the Council of the EU agriculture ministers reached a political agreement on the Health Check of the Common Agricultural Policy. The Health Check agreement will imply a revision of the Community Strategic Guidelines in order to include the new challenges. This will lead to an obligation for MS to revise their national strategy plans after the adoption of the Community strategic guidelines and subsequently the rural development programmes. As regards to pillar 1 and its cross compliance obligations the health check 5 agreement introduces two new water related standards under the requirements of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC). These new standards focusing on the protection and management of water are designed to protect water against pollution and run-off and manage the use of water. This will involve the obligation of Member States to require the establishment of buffer strips along water courses and to ensure compliance with authorisation procedures in cases where the use of water for irrigation is subject to authorisation. The start date for the irrigation GAEC is ; the buffer strip GAEC may also start then but MS are only obliged to introduce it by The minimum requirements for the buffer strip measure mirror those required by the Nitrates Directive but apply to the whole territory and not only in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. MS may apply more stringent requirements if they wish. As many MS are currently using RD payments to support the establishment of buffer strips, putting them under Cross Compliance would require an adaption of the RD programmes. Another amendment related to water under pillar 1 is, the abolishment of the set-aside provision. This might increase environmental pressures in many places and could 4 In March 2007, the European Council agreed on a new voluntary modulation regulation that allows Member States to modulate up to an additional 15 percent of the Single Farm Payment budget to the Rural Development budget if the Member State meets one of two conditions: i) the Member State already applies a voluntary modulation system (UK only); or ii) the member state already has an exemption from co-financing rural development measures (Portugal only). 5 For details see 8

9 require a re-adjustment of the RD measures in terms of areas targeted. The increase in the rural development budget through modulation as well as the additional requirements under GAEC, such as the establishment of buffer strips along water courses, could contribute to reducing the possible negative impacts of abolishing set-aside. Under pillar 2 the Council also agreed on an indicative list of types of operations (measures) to address new challenges to be financed with the additional modulation budget, namely climate change, risk management, green energy, better water management and protection of biodiversity, as well as accompanying measures for dairy production and innovation measures linked to the new challenges. The table below presents possible operations to address the new challenges related to water management 6. Table 1: Indicative list with types of operations and potential effect related to the water priority under the Health check of the CAP. Priority: Water Management Types of operations Articles and measures Potential effects Water saving technologies (e.g. efficient irrigation systems) Water storage (including water overflow areas) Water saving production techniques (e.g. adapted cropping patterns) Wetland restoration Conversion of agricultural land into swamps Conversion of agricultural land into forest/agro-forestry systems Installations for waste water treatment on farms and in processing and marketing Article 26: modernisation of agricultural holdings Article 30: infrastructure Article 28: adding value to agricultural and forestry products Article 39: agri-environment payments Article 41: non-productive investments Article 39: agri-environment payements Article 38: Natura 2000 payments Articles 43 and 45: first afforestation of agricultural land and non-agricultural land Article 26: modernisation of agricultural holdings Article 28: adding value to agricultural land and forestry products Improvement of the capacity to use water more efficiently and to improve the capacity to store water Conservation of high-value water bodies; protection and improvement of water quality Protection and improvement of water quality Improvement of the capacity to use water more efficiently 6 Some of the measures will also allow addressing the issue of climate change. 9

10 Development of semi-natural water bodies Creation of natural banks Meandering rivers Soil management practices (e.g. catch crops; organic farming; conversion of arable land into permanent pasture) Information and dissemination of knowledge related to water management Article 39: agri-environment payments Article 57: conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage Article 39: agri-environment payments Article 21: vocational training and information actions Article 58: training and information Conservation of high-value water bodies; protection and improvement of water quality Contributing to the reduction of losses of different compounds to water, including phosphorus Raising awareness and knowledge and thus, indirectly, the efficiency of operations related to water management Member States are free to introduce other measures relating to the new challenges as long as they comply with the Rural Development Regulation. In order to cover the measures addressing these new challenges under pillar 2, the Council also agreed to increase compulsory modulation by an additional 5% introduced progressively. This rate will be increased to 10 percent by Main principles of the European Rural Development policy By creating a hierarchy of objectives, the 2003 rural development policy established a stronger link to the broader objectives of the EU, as specified in the Gothenburg and Lisbon strategies. In these strategies, the guiding principle for Rural Development Regulation (RDR) is: Strong economic performance must go hand in hand with the sustainable use of natural resources. The current RDR provides Member States with the flexibility to tailor their programmes and measures to their national, regional and local conditions and to their needs with regard to the development of their rural areas and the provision of agricultural public goods (Maier, L.., 2008). Member States can therefore set priorities at national or regional level, but they are also required to take into consideration overarching European objectives. In this context, the RDR aims to place agriculture in a broader context that also takes into account the protection of the rural environment, the quality of produced food, and the attractiveness of rural areas to young farmers and new residents. The current RD policy, co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and Member States, brings together a number of policy measures under a single instrument. It provides financial support under the framework of 37 measures. The various policy measures are organised into three axes with each axis targeting one of the three main domains (objectives) of intervention (European Commission, DG Agriculture, 2006) and a fourth axis called LEADER. Member States are required to allocate a minimum proportion of the EAFRD budget to each of the 10

11 domains, thus ensuring a balance between the axes of rural development (Art. 17 of Regulation (EC) N 1698/2005). All programmes are also funded via national funds and for some measures private funding is also required. The three thematic axes are: Axis 1: Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector: The Community financial contribution shall cover at least 10 percent of the EAFRD total contribution to the rural development programme Although the title of axis 1 refers only to competitiveness, it must be noted that axis 1 is a multi objective axis offering measures that can cover both competitiveness and environmental issues. Axis 2: Improving the environment and the countryside - at least 25 percent of the EAFRD total contribution to the programme shall be allocated to Axis 2 7. Axis 2 focuses on environment and land management issues. Axis 3: The quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy - at least 10 percent of the EAFRD total contribution to the programme shall be allocated to Axis 3. Similar to Axis 1, Axis 3 can also address environmental issues. So, environmental issues and therefore water can be addressed under all three axes. In addition to the three thematic axes, a fourth axis called LEADER is provided under the RDR. The aim of Leader is to encourage rural actors to think about the longer-term potential of their area. It supports local actors in implementing a strategy that they themselves have designed by using the measures provided under axes 1, 2, and 3. At least 5 percent of the EAFRD total contribution to the programme shall be allocated to LEADER 8. Furthermore, up to 4% of rural development programme funding can be used for preparation, management, monitoring, evaluation, information and control activities (Technical Assistance). In order to ensure that Member States consider the overarching European objectives and to give more guidance on how to implement the RDR in their national context, the Agriculture Council adopted EU strategic guidelines for rural development on 20 February 2006 (Council Decision, 2006). Based on the key priorities set out in the RDR, these guidelines set out a strategic approach and a range of options Member States should use in their national Rural Development programmes (RDPs). In order to ensure that the various RDPs are in line with the RDR and the strategic guidelines, Member States must get approval from the European Commission. 7 For the programmes of the French overseas departments, the minimum Community financial contribution for Axis 2 shall be 10 %. 8 For the new Member States, this contribution of 5% may be phased in over the programming period in such a way that on average at least 2.5% of the EAFRD total contribution is reserved for Axis 4. 11

12 2.3 Main Principles of the Water Framework Directive The Water Framework Directive (WFD) entered into force in December As opposed to earlier water protection measures, which were based on sectoral approaches, the Directive extends to all aquatic systems, surface waters (rivers and lakes), groundwater and coastal waters. Land eco-systems depending on groundwater are also included under the protection of the quantity and quality of groundwater. River basin management plans, including summaries of programmes of measures, are currently being drawn up, in an effort to achieve the Directive s environmental objective of the good ecological status of all waters by Programmes of measures must be developed for each river basin district and can be considered as the principal mechanism for the implementation of the environmental objectives of the WFD. These programmes must be established by 2009 and made operational by 2012 (Art. 11 WFD). They should be based on a risk assessment (Art. 5 WFD), which was completed in 2004/5. The results of the risk assessment can be summarised as follows (Herbke et al., 2006 and Kampa et al, 2009a): increased pollution of groundwater and rivers due to nitrate and pesticide leaching; reduction of groundwater and river flow levels as a direct result of water abstractions; increased negative impacts on natural resources resulting from the construction of dams and the diversion of watercourses for irrigation purposes; secondary effects such as risks of erosion, the disappearance of wetlands, oxygen deficits in rivers leading to the possible extinction of species of flora or fauna, or the gradual salinisation of groundwater in coastal areas; risks of adverse effects on human health and problems related to water treatment due to water pollution; increased risks of flooding due to e.g. local deforestation and the installation of polders for agricultural purposes. In addition to this agriculture is also highly responsible for hydro-morphological changes in particular because of land drainage. In the framework of the rural development policy, the Community offers a menu of measures to address these pressures and impacts listed above. Many positive experiences show, if properly designed and implemented these RDR measures can facilitate the achievement of the WFD objectives 9. 9 See e.g. European Commission (2005): Agri-environment Measures -Overview on General Principles, Types of Measures, and Application, available at Schmidt, T et al (n.d.). Enhanced costeffective agri-environmental measures for groundwater protection an economic and ecological modelling approach, available online at: Matzdorf et al (n.d.). Designing efficient agri-environmental schemes under consideration of the Common 12

13 2.4 Measures under the Rural Development Regulation that can support the WFD implementation As outlined before, the RDR has several objectives and the improvement and protection of the environment is only one out of several. Further, water is not the only environmental issue that has to be taken into account when designing the national RD programmes as other environmental objectives are also valid. However, the three main axes of the RDR contain a large menu of measures for protecting and enhancing natural water resources (including Art. 38 refereeing to the WFD explicitly), as well as for preserving high-nature value farming and forestry systems and the cultural landscapes of Europe s rural areas (see table below) 10. Table 2: Overview of generic measures under the upcoming RDR relevant for water (based on Dworak et al, 2005). +++ very relevant (positive) --- very relevant (negative) 0 not relevant ++ relevant (positive) -- relevant (negative) + indirect linkage (positive) - indirect linkage (negative) Pollution Alterations of hydrologic regimes Hydromorphologi cal modification Soil erosion Rural Development Axis I Natural disaster & prevention actions (Art b ((vi)) Vocational training and information actions (Art. 21) Setting up of young farmers (Art. 22) Early retirement (Art. 23) Use of advisory services (Art. 24) Setting up management, relief and advisory services (Art. 25) Modernisation of agricultural holdings (Art. 26) +++/ / /- Improvement of the economic value of forests (Art. 27) Infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry (Art. 30) ++/-- ++/ /- Meeting standards based on community legislation (Art.31) Semi-subsistence farming (Art. 34) +/- +/- 0 +/- Agricultural Policy (CAP) in Europe. Available online at: 10 A more detailed overview of how the different measures under the RDR can be used to improve and protect water quality is given in Dworak et al; This table was also used as a template when assessing the different national MS assessment. During that assessment it turned out that under Axis III several more measures are used to implement water protection measures. Also some of the ratings related to the impacts have been adjusted based on expert judgement and new safeguard requirements. 13

14 Rural Development Axis II Natural handicap payments in mountain areas and payments in other areas with handicaps (Art. 37) NATURA 2000 payments and payments linked to the WFD (Art. 38) Agri-environmental payments (Art. 39) Non-productive investments (Art. 41) First afforestation of agricultural land (Art. 43) / First establishment of agroforestry systems on agricultural land (Art. 44) First afforestation of non- agricultural land ++ ++/ (Art. 45) Natura 2000 payments (Art. 46) Forest-environment payments (Art. 47) Restoring forestry potential and introducing prevention actions (Art. 48) Non-productive investments (Art. 49) Rural Development Axis III Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage (Art. 57) Skills acquisition and animation (Art. 59) +/ +/ +/ +/ It is important to recognise that for several of these measures, such as support for investments in agricultural holdings and improving the processing and marketing of agricultural products, investments have to respect relevant national and Community standards. A general condition for axis 2 measures is that beneficiaries must respect the EU and national mandatory requirements for agriculture and forestry. Cross compliance is the baseline for direct payments and the same baseline is applicable to measures under axis 2. In the case of agri-environmental payments, which are mandatory, additional conditions for fertilizer and pesticide use set in the programmes will apply. Nevertheless, the impact of measures chosen depends on various factors such as the type of farming system and management practice and the intensity of production within the targeted area, the organisational and geographical circumstances, the willingness of different stakeholders to co-operate, as well as the level of ecological awareness of farmers. Furthermore, even if the selection and implementation of the RD measures is based on an assessment required under the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC) and there is a principle of complementarity of axes (achievements in one axis are not undermined by measures of other axes), there are some measures that could also hamper WFD implementation by negatively affecting water bodies (e.g. payments for certain investments leading to intensification). 14

15 3 Nature of the present report 3.1 Main objectives and structure of the report As outlined in the previous section, there is a clear link between the Water Framework Directive and the Rural Development Regulation. Understanding this link is critical to achieving the best synergies between the two policies. The key objectives of this report, which provides the summary results of an in-depth assessment carried out on behalf of DG Environment, are: To assess the extent to which the theoretical opportunities of including water restoration and/or protection measures have been put into practice and to identify how Member States have used the Rural development funding to improve water status; To identify the strengths and weaknesses of existing RD programmes in the light of national water problems, including water quality issues (e.g. pollution by nutrients and pesticides), water quantity issues (floods and droughts) and hydromorphological changes (e.g. restoration of wetlands); To identify the extent to which the WFD have been considered in the RD programmes; and To highlight cases in which the application of RD measures bears the risk of increasing pressures on European waters. This assessment could also be used to provide input for ongoing discussions on improving RD programmes as regards to water as it highlights strengths and weaknesses of water management in the current design of rural development policies. To this end, this report first presents background information on the RDR and the WFD (section 2). Some limitations to the assessment are highlighted in the following sub section (3.2). Section 4 briefly introduces the methodology used to carry out the assessment. Section 5 provides a general overview of the importance of water in the overall context of the national RD programmes, highlighting the main pressures on water reported in the RD programmes as well as the link between the WFD and the RDPs. Following this introduction, section 6 details the approach taken by MS and provides examples of how RD measures can be used to improve water. RD measures are broken down by their primary focus (e.g. improvement of economic situation or reducing environmental costs) and MS that apply the measures are identified. Section 7 examines the use of Axis 4 the LEADER approach to implement the WFD, and section 8 reviews the monitoring and implementation approaches used by the MS to evaluate their RDPs, including CMEF and national water specific indicators. To sum up the results of the assessment, section 9 presents the main strengths and weaknesses of the MS RDPs with respect to water issues. Section 10 draws final conclusions and recommendations for future activities. 15

16 3.2 Limitations of the report As set out in the terms of reference, conclusions and the entire present evaluation report are based on a survey and the review of the national Rural Development Programs for Annex 2 provides an overview of the national RDP versions used in the assessment. The authors are fully aware that several more relevant documents such as the National Strategic Plans and other detailed national reports on the implementation related to rural development exist. However, due to the time and budget resources these documents could not been considered, which leads to the fact that: information on the control requirements and systems could not be fully assessed because such information was not completely included in the national Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) but documented separately as part of the control system at Member State level. Therefore, a judgement of the effectiveness of certain measures is not fully possible. the assessment did not take into account the adoption of the RD measures by farmers. In other words, as farmers are not obliged to participate in the RD programme and can select which measures they apply, it cannot be guaranteed that all measures which could bring a benefit for water are fully applied in a Member State. The authors recommend that such an assessment be carried out in the future. 16

17 4 Methodology used to carry out the assessment In order to assess the EU 27 Rural Development reports the following approach was used: 1. First, based on an internet survey the RD programmes of the 27 Member States as well as the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance for Rural Development (IPARD) plans 11 for the accession countries were collected (see Annex 3). 2. In parallel an assessment template was developed in close cooperation with Commission services (DG Environment). This template was structured along the following issues: i) The agricultural context in which the RD programme has been developed; ii) The main environmental priorities in the RD programmes; iii) The extent to which water issues are reflected in the global and operational objectives of the RD programmes and (directly or indirectly) in the environmental measures; iv) The budget allocated to each type of measure relevant to water management issues; v) Administrative framework used for implementation and control. (A full version of the template used in the assessment is provided in Annex 1.) 3. The draft reports have been given to the Member States to allow for comment sand a more detailed review. Relevant comments have been considered in the final version of the report. This summary report has been produced based on the assessments of the national and regional RDP and follows the questions outlined below: Figure 1: Methodology for assessing RD-programmes as regards water management. 11 The Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance for Rural Development (IPARD) of the EU aims to contribute to the sustainable adaptation of the agricultural sector and the implementation of EU law relevant to CAP and Rural Development Policy (RDP). 17

18 5 Importance of water in the overall context of the national RD programmes 5.1 General overview and share of public budget among the axes In order to obtain EU support, all Member States have to prepare a Rural Development Programme (RDP) in which they set out those measures they intend to implement in the period All RDPs must be approved by the European Commission. A RDP may cover an entire Member State or can cover individual regions within a country. All new Member States and seven EU-15 Member States (Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden) have decided to submit a RDP for their entire country. Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK have all submitted regional RDPs. Three Member States (Finland, France and Portugal) adopted a hybrid approach, developing one RDP for the mainland and regional RDPs for islands or overseas departments. Member States can distribute their budgets in various ways, reflecting the varying rural development needs of each locality. The diagram below illustrates the split among the different Member States according to the three axes, LEADER and to technical assistance. *include direct payments Figure 2: Share of public budget (i.e. Community and Member States contribution) among the different axes as percentage) In Ireland, Axis 3 measures are to be implemented using the Leader (Axis 4) approach, so the budget for Axis 4 was set to zero. In Romania and Bulgaria the amount covers also specific Accession Treaty measures for the period. 18

19 Regarding public expenditure, it is apparent in the above diagram that about half of the Member States (Spain, Latvia Belgium, Portugal, Hungary, Greece, Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Malta, Netherlands) have dedicated the largest share to Axis 1 (improving agricultural competitiveness), while the other half (Finland, Ireland, Austria, United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Slovenia, France, Slovakia, Cyprus, Germany, Italy) to Axis 2 (addressing environmental issues). No Member State has given the largest share to Axis 3. Except in Malta, Bulgaria and Romania, Axis 3 is in the third place 13. It is important to note that RD programmes cover a broad spectrum of environmental issues. According to the Community Strategic Guidelines of the Rural Development Regulation, the measures available under Axis 2 must be used to integrate several environmental objectives and must contribute to the implementation of the agricultural and forestry Natura 2000 network, to the Göteborg commitment to reverse biodiversity decline by 2010, to the Water Framework Directive objectives and to the Kyoto Protocol targets for climate change mitigation. It is therefore important to note that water and the implementation of the WFD is one priority among several environmental issues. 5.2 Main pressures to water reported in the RD programmes When developing the RDP each MS has to prepare an assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) on various aspects to be addressed in the RD. The issue of water also needs to be addressed in this context. In many cases this SWOT assessment is linked to the results of Art. 5 assessment under the WFD, which includes i) analysis of characteristics of each River Basin District, ii) a review of pressures and impacts on waters and iii) a economic analysis. The Art. 5 assessment forms the starting point for the rivers basin management and planning under the WFD and could be used for developing the RDPs. Not all MS used the opportunity to reduce the work by using the Art 5 assessment, and in many cases the SWOT assessment carried out in the RDR is based on different sources. However, even if this link was not made in all cases the picture is close to the findings of an EU wide Art. 5 WFD assessment carried out by Herbke, et al in The main pressures on water reported in the RDP are: Water Quality: Diffuse pollution by nutrients and pesticides is the most important issue in Austria, Bulgaria Czech Republic, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK. Prevention/reduction of diffuse pollution in coastal zones is reported in Finland parts of Spain and Latvia (future prevention). In the remaining countries diffuse pollution is addressed but a lower priority is given compared to other water issues. Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria are also reporting point 13 Please note that due to the federal nature of the state, Italy, Spain, Germany, and the UK have more than one RD Programme. France and Portugal have also drawn up separate RD programmes for their mainland and overseas departments or regions. So the results presented here are average values for these countries. 19

20 sources as an issue in rural areas and have therefore included measures to improve the water sanitation sector. Water quantity: Water scarcity is most important in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain. Regional scarcity issues are also reported in Bulgaria and England (East Anglica). Flooding is an important issue in Denmark, parts of Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, parts of Italy and the U.K. (Scotland). In this context, but also to improve biodiversity and natural water structure the creation/maintenance of wetlands, is supported by Denmark, Finland, Germany (Baden-Württemberg), parts of Italy, Sweden and the U.K. (England and Scotland). Hydro-morphological changes are only reported in a few cases as an issue and are often connected to flooding control measures (e.g. Flanders and Germany) or the creation of wetlands. However, this is in contradiction to the WFD findings (see Kampa, et al 2009a). In some countries (e.g. Austria and Czech Republic) village renewal measures have the potential to address hydromorphological issues. Even if there was no possibility, due to the limited resources, to carry out a detailed comparison between the Significant Water Management Issues required by the WFD (Art. 14.1) and the SWOT assessment (on the programme level), it becomes clear that the overall focus of MS RD programmes with regards to water reflect the main issues identified. As set out by Kampa et al, 2009b, diffuse pollution is a key pressure from agriculture across the EU: in 66% of RBDs agriculture is linked to nutrient enrichment, and in nearly 50% of RBDs agriculture is linked to contamination from priority substances. This fact is clearly taken into account in the RD programmes. Further, water scarcity is also a key challenge for several MS. In response to questionnaires in the framework of the second European Commission interim report on water scarcity, thirteen Member States provided a list of river basins particularly affected by water scarcity (European Commission, 2007). Agriculture represents the major water user (abstractions) in many basins across Europe, not only in the southern regions. Most affected river basins are located in southern Europe (Cyprus, Malta, Italy, Portugal, Spain, France) but also northern and eastern countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, United Kingdom) specified river basins. This is also reflected fully in the SWOT assessment of the RD programs. 5.3 Link between the WFD and the Rural Development programmes Within the Community Strategic Guidelines a clear statement with reference to the WFD is made. It is stated that the measures available under axis 2 should be used, inter alia, to contribute to the objectives laid down in Directive 2000/60/EC. In most cases this integration is very unclear and the WFD is addressed as an important Directive that has to be implemented when justifying the priorities chosen. However, a clear link between the measures under axis 2 and the objectives of the WFD is not often provided. 20

21 Nevertheless some regional programmes in Italy, France, Germany, Greece, the UK, and the RD programmes of Malta, Denmark, Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, Lithuania, Flanders and Hungary specifically refer to the implementation of the WFD (beside mentioning Art. 38 RDR) when describing the axis II and other measures in detail. Illustration: Link between WFD and on RD measures level In Bulgaria there is a clear reference to the WFD in the case of new irrigation projects under the farm investments measure (Art. 26 RDR): Any project applications concerning investments which would increase the capacity or water consumption of the irrigation network on farm must be co-ordinated with the regional structures of the Ministry of Environment and Water, who is in charge of monitoring and managing the water balance at watershed level in line with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), article 5 and Annex III, prior to their approval. Illustration: Detailed link between WFD assessment and selecting and targeting RD measures Another detailed link between the WFD and the RD measures can be found in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. The analysis of the status of water quality (Art. 5 WFD) indicates that 98% of the surface waters and 50% of the ground water bodies are in danger of not meeting the targets laid out in the WFD. Measure Reduce nutrient input into waters under axis II, which provides financial aid for catch crops, precision agriculture and buffer strips, was chosen based on the WFD assessment and is in line with the implementation of the WFD. However, it has to be stressed that the River Basin Management Plans, which define the environmental objectives in each River Basin and include summaries of programmes of measures, were not established by the time MS drew up their RDP. This explains why the MS referred to water issues without making the link with the WFD. This also explains why a specific description on how RD measures will interplay with the WFD programmes of measures is not provided in any of the reports. However, some MS clearly indicate that relevant measures in the RPDs will be modified after approval of the RBMP. A more detailed assessment of how MS use the different measures selected to improve or protect waters is given in the next chapter. 21

22 6 Examples of how RD measures can be used to improve water in the MS 6.1 Overview of RD measure with an impact on water applied at MS level Integration of environmental requirements into the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is achieved alongside general requirements of cross compliance through incentive-based measures under the Rural Development Regulation. Based on Interwies et al, (2006), RD measures can be distinguished by the different incentives they provide: Payments which focus primarily on improving the economic situation of rural areas. These payments do not have a positive impact on the environment per se and therefore complementary safeguarding mechanisms are needed to ensure a positive environmental performance. Payments that aim primarily at reducing the environmental pressures/costs 14 linked to agricultural water use 15. These measures can significantly contribute to water protection and restoration and to the implementation of the WFD. Payments falling under both categories. Some payments under the RDR, such as modernisation of farms, can fall under both categories. For example, investments in infrastructure support financial costs of water services 16 and investments for modern spraying equipment contribute to the improvement of the environment. The table (Table 3) below shows the various measures that are applied by MS with positive direct or indirect impacts on water. Details about which regional RDP applies specific measure can be found in the main text. Further several illustrations (boxes in the text) presenting good examples for using the different measures to improve water status are provided. However it should be noted, that these illustrations do not account for the uptake by the farmers community or the way of implementation. They only should show possibilities and might stimulate the debate on how to design new measures as regards to water when revising the different RDPs. 14 Environmental costs are defined as the costs of damage that water uses impose on the environment and ecosystems and those who use the environment (WATECO 2003). 15 Water uses are defined in Article 2 of the WFD as: water services together with any other activity identified under Article 5 and Annex II having a significant impact on the status of water. 16 Water services means all services which provide water, for households, public institutions or any economic activity. 22

23 Table 3: RD measures applied at MS level that have a direct or indirect positive impact on water 17. Codes under Regulation (EC No 1698/2005) AT BE* BG CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE* EL HU IE IT* LV LT LU MT NL PL PT RO SK SI ES* SE UK* total Payments with primary focus on the improvement of economic situation of rural areas Code 123: Adding value to agricultural products X X X 3 Code 125: Agricultural and forestry infrastructure X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 22 Code 313: Tourism activities X X X X 4 Code 321: Basic Services X X X X X X 5 Code 322: Village renewal and development X X X X X 5 Codes under Regulation (EC No 1698/2005) Code 213: NATURA 2000 on agricultural land and the WFD Payments that aim primarily at reducing the environmental costs AT BE* BG CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE* EL HU IE IT* LV LT LU MT NL PL PT RO SK SI ES* SE UK* total X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 Code 214: Agri-Environmental measures X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 27 Code 216: Non productive investments X X X X X X X X X X 10 Code 221: First afforestation of agricultural land X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 Code 223: First afforestation of non-agricultural land X X X X X X X X X X X 11 Code 224: Natura 2000 X X X X X X X X X 9 17 Please not that the table below only represents the current status of discussions by experts of how to classify RD measures. This picture might change in the future. 23

24 payments (on forest land) Code 225: Forest-environment payments X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 Code 227: Non-productive investments There is also a measure on NATURA 2000 in forest land! X X X X X X X X X 9 Code 323: Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 9 Codes under Regulation (EC No 1698/2005) Payments falling under both categories AT BE* BG CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE* EL HU IE IT* LV LT LU MT NL PL PT RO SK SI ES* SE UK* total Code 111: Training, Information X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 27 Code 114: Use of advisory services X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 Code 121: Modernisation of agricultural holdings X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 26 Code 126: Restoration and prevention actions X X X X X X X 7 Code 211/212: Natural handicap payments X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 27 Code 222: First establishment of agroforestry systems X X X X X X 6 Code 226: Recovery of forestry potentials X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 *For these Member States the use of certain measures varies among the different sub-national RDPs. X. A cross is only made when a link to water has been established or indirect effects on water can be tracked. So in some case a MS might apply a measure listed in the table above, but if no link to water was identified the measure has not been taken into account. 24